3 ms·

> I don't prefer he become the arbiter of speech. I'd prefer the government would [...] hold him accountable for the damage that lies and misinformation cause o

by chias 7y ago

> I don't prefer he become the arbiter of speech. I'd prefer the government would [...] hold him accountable for the damage that lies and misinformation cause on his platform I'm understanding you correctly, you believe that Zuckerberg should be held liable for untruthful content hosted on its platform, but you also believe that Zuckerberg should not be allowed to choose what content is hosted on its platform. How do you harmonize those two fundamentally contradictory viewpoints? Or do you feel that the only "correct" way forward is to excise Facebook in its entirety?

Barrin92 7y ago
I think the platform should be held liable if it causes damage to individuals by spreading false information about them. For example we could start by handing out fines to platforms if they do not remove damaging or false information in timely manner. I don't think the platform needs to go entirely, I just think it needs to get an incentive, financially for starters, if it fails to adhere to standards set by legislators.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- chias 7y ago
  In your ideal case, lets say that Facebook identifies some content that it believes is spreading false information about somebody. Should Facebook be allowed to remove it? If no: Facebook is being fined for not taking an action that it is not allowed to take, which I can't imagine you are advocating for. If yes: Facebook is now the arbiter of what information gets to be seen (on Facebook), which you didn't want. A third option, of course, would be to let the government (all governments?) decide when something should be removed from Facebook, but frankly I think this is the worst option of the three. I suspect that you meant liability in cases when something is "clearly" untrue, so my comments likely come off as pedantry. In cases like this video it's very easy to make that determination. But when it isn't so clear cut, there will have to be judgement calls, and if we're talking actual liability then someone has to be empowered make them. Who gets to make these judgement calls? Either Facebook, the US Government, any government including the ones that you don't like, or maybe some supposedly non-biased third party. None of these options sound at all good to me. I don't know what the answer is, I just want to point out that whatever it is, if it even exists, it isn't as simple as that.
  - gfodor 7y ago
    We all know that when people talk about coercion of removal of online content, they're talking about content they deem worthy of removal. You can avoid cognitive dissonance if you assume you have the "right" perspective on how to bucket content into two groups, acceptable and unacceptable, and that the bucketing made by regulators will be identical to yours, since it's clearly the only objectively correct one. Of course, this is so far from reality if such a thing were to be implemented that it's not worth taking seriously.

by chias 7y ago

Barrin92 7y ago

I think the platform should be held liable if it causes damage to individuals by spreading false information about them. For example we could start by handing out fines to platforms if they do not remove damaging or false information in timely manner. I don't think the platform needs to go entirely, I just think it needs to get an incentive, financially for starters, if it fails to adhere to standards set by legislators.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
chias 7y ago
In your ideal case, lets say that Facebook identifies some content that it believes is spreading false information about somebody. Should Facebook be allowed to remove it? If no: Facebook is being fined for not taking an action that it is not allowed to take, which I can't imagine you are advocating for. If yes: Facebook is now the arbiter of what information gets to be seen (on Facebook), which you didn't want. A third option, of course, would be to let the government (all governments?) decide when something should be removed from Facebook, but frankly I think this is the worst option of the three. I suspect that you meant liability in cases when something is "clearly" untrue, so my comments likely come off as pedantry. In cases like this video it's very easy to make that determination. But when it isn't so clear cut, there will have to be judgement calls, and if we're talking actual liability then someone has to be empowered make them. Who gets to make these judgement calls? Either Facebook, the US Government, any government including the ones that you don't like, or maybe some supposedly non-biased third party. None of these options sound at all good to me. I don't know what the answer is, I just want to point out that whatever it is, if it even exists, it isn't as simple as that.
- gfodor 7y ago
  We all know that when people talk about coercion of removal of online content, they're talking about content they deem worthy of removal. You can avoid cognitive dissonance if you assume you have the "right" perspective on how to bucket content into two groups, acceptable and unacceptable, and that the bucketing made by regulators will be identical to yours, since it's clearly the only objectively correct one. Of course, this is so far from reality if such a thing were to be implemented that it's not worth taking seriously.